citadel_collector wrote:Errrmm...OK, I don't mean great in that sense, I mean great as in nostalgic great...if that makes sense....I'll get my coat...

There's no need to get that extreme.  I simply detest Greg Bell's artwork, if you call it artwork.  Some sources suggest it's tracing and/or complete plagiarism.

Nostalgia great doesn't have me wanting to throw up over the loo.

The man has or had an excessively heavy hand, which combined with the pen he was using, led to really bold strokes.  With that same excessively heavy hand, he attempted to shade, using the same pen.  Looking at the image on page 5 of Supplement II, if he kept his bold strokes for the outline of the lammasu and used a lighter hand on the details, it wouldn't be so bad.  However, because of his usage of all bold strokes, I'd be left wondering what in the hell this was if I didn't read the provided caption.

It's just bad bad bad artwork all throughout the pages of OD&D, with the exception of two DCS pieces that appeared in Supplement III on pages 26 and 28, the OCE's box cover, and the covers to Supplements II-IV.

My copy of Blackmoor I believe is a last printing, so it may well be different.  SIII, p26 is a foreshadowing of the artwork that would become most prominent in the AD&D Monster Manual.  p28's artwork I will concede that it might have been better had it been inked, but I don't believe it to be a weak execution at all.  Pencil art can be very striking when it wants to be.  Just look at the artwork in 1st Edition Warhammer Fantasy Role Play for examples of good pencil work.

If choosing pieces for reprinting, not a single Bell image would make the cut, unless they were redrawn by a more competent artist.  Obviously, TSR noticed that the quality of Bell's artwork would not be satisfactory for Holmes basic and the AD&D rules, or else some of his work would be in there.  Coincidence?  I think not.